Recent incidents in Bengaluru of altercations between the Kannada-speaking local population and migrants have hit national headlines. Most social media commentary on the issue—blaming the residents—reflects a failure to understand the true scale of migration and the extensive change in the city’s demographics in the past two decades.
Bengaluru is an exceptional Indian city. Even by conservative estimates of the 2011 census, a whopping 107 languages are spoken there, the highest for any district in the country. And this trend has undoubtedly intensified since 2011. By some estimates, Karnataka (mostly Bengaluru-dominated) has seen the highest net inward migration of all states in the country.
Research by economists using Facebook data highlights the migration pattern for Indian states below.
Beyond linguistic differences
One of the key reasons for the emerging conflict in Bengaluru is that it has long been a well-settled city with a strong sense of local culture and heritage. Kempe Gowda I fortified the city in 1537, inviting people from various regions to settle. Later, the Mysuru Wadiyar dynasty played a pivotal role in modernising Bengaluru. Their patronage helped establish key institutions like the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), making the city a center for education and manufacturing. However, the city’s population has undergone rapid transformation since.
Between 1991 and 2011, it more than doubled, and it may have doubled again in the last decade. This large influx of people, who understandably seek to benefit from the city’s opportunities, cannot be expected to blend seamlessly with an already established local population.
Linguistic differences are not the only source of tension; there are other significant points of contention. Bengaluru is both the political and cultural heart of Karnataka, as well as a key driver of India’s economic growth—it is the fastest-growing tech hub not just in India, but globally. Yet, some commentators on social media advocate relocating tech industries out of Bengaluru, often accompanied by anti-Kannada rhetoric. What they fail to grasp is the vast gap between Bengaluru and the next closest tech hub in India. Hence, it is in our country’s best interest to address the city’s issues rather than entertain unrealistic ideas of replacing it.
This tension is not unique to Karnataka. Modern economies are largely driven by cities, by 2030, 70 per cent of India’s GDP is likely to be generated in cities. As India’s urban centers grow into economic powerhouses, they become essential to the stability of their respective states.
India’s states have proven to be exceptionally stable units of governance, with state boundary changes being relatively rare in post-Independence history. Take Hyderabad, for example—Andhra Pradesh is still struggling to establish a new capital after bifurcation. It highlights the crucial role cities like Hyderabad play.
It is important to recognise that Karnataka’s stability is closely tied to Bengaluru. The city is vital to the state, particularly in light of nascent statehood demands from small sections in coastal and northern Karnataka, where perceptions of cultural differences and underdevelopment have risen respectively. For Karnataka, losing control over Bengaluru—whether politically, economically, or culturally—is a real and potent fear. This is why there are such strong reactions when local cultural identities are seen as being under threat. Kannada organisations, much like those in Mumbai, have worked to consolidate their presence in the city. As Bengaluru’s population becomes increasingly diverse, this trend will only intensify.
Some argue that there are bigger governance problems to focus on and we can’t get trapped in “regional” issues. But one of the biggest casualties of the tensions in Bengaluru—and the fears they provoke—is the potential for administrative reform and further devolution of power to cities. While our cities propel our economy, city-level governance remains abysmally weak. For instance, Bengaluru’s civic body elections have been delayed by more than four years, leaving the city’s administration in limbo. This governance deficit is deeply ironic. Even the BJP leader of Opposition in Karnataka, for instance, recently stated that Bengaluru’s mayor should always be a Kannadiga, reflecting the deep-seated concerns about city governance being captured by outsiders.
Many of these city governance reforms are to be actively driven by the state government. However, no state government will be inclined to grant autonomy to cities, especially if there is a perception that the city is being overrun by migrants, some of whom are not assimilating into local society and culture.
Also read: Digital guardians of Kannada are waging a new language war in Karnataka against Hindi imposition
Not a north-south divide
Undoubtedly, Bengaluru is a poster child for how positive migration and economic growth can solve issues that India has been grappling with since Independence — the creation of wealth for a large number of people, unlocking the power of private enterprises through innovation and technology, an excellent hub for higher education and world-class medical care. But for this to continue, the tensions in Bengaluru must be resolved.
The solution lies not in framing the issue as a North-South divide, but in encouraging assimilation. The Bengaluru divide is not between north and south India; it is between those who respect and engage with the city’s cultural traditions and those who don’t. There is a strong, liberal justification for the call for assimilation into local values and culture. The Kannada way of life—with its simplicity, sense of dignity, propriety in social settings, and its non-imposing, accommodative nature—has been a key factor in shaping Bengaluru into the city it is today. Assimilation into this way of life would be a net positive, strengthening the cultural fabric of the city.
The key to resolving these tensions lies in small but significant gestures—learning the language, participating in local traditions, and showing respect for the way of life that has made Bengaluru such a welcoming city, to begin with.
Indians, as a people, have an extraordinary ability to assimilate into new societies. Across the world, we see examples of Indians successfully blending into different cultures while retaining their own values. Whether it is former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, US Vice President Kamala Harris, or US politician Vivek Ramaswamy, Indians have risen to the top of societies they have adopted. Indian-origin populations are among the most successful diaspora communities globally, due in no small part to their ability to integrate.
So, why is it that when it comes to migration within India, the same openness to assimilation is lacking? It is surprising, and frankly disappointing, to see pushback against the idea that newcomers to Bengaluru should respect the norms and culture of the local society. Picking up a few words of Kannada, and participating in local traditions is not too much to ask for.
I’m a Mangalorean Konkani person from Bangalore born to a Christian family. I can assure the readers that the hostility in Bangalore isn’t just to do with the lack of respect to the local culture. I’m from the state and learnt Kannada along with my mother tongue when I was four. But I always faced similar hostility all my life in the city because of my less-than-perfect Kannada. I speak it fairly well, but the locals can detect the non-first language intonation or ‘accent’ in my speech and have always made disparaging comments about it. The locals are too touchy about their singular, previously majoritarian identity being ‘overrun’. They see it as a threat and are not open to dialogue. I advocate learning the language for smooth assimilation. But the article also asks migrants to adopt some local traditions to show respect. These traditions are mostly rooted in conservative Kannada Brahmanism. The article really lacks this caste and religion-based nuance too. It’s undeniable that the pushback also has a lot to do with religious conservatism, caste, and language being so tightly knitted together.
Global changes are a fact. Since 1947, the south didn’t get its due recognition comparing with north. Language and culture are a open fact and as north expect south to speak its language, so is south. Most important is not to ignore the importance of local language, which is taken as granted by north. Respect for local language is what is the need .